The real religion?

[KevinM1]

I mean, I could say that Jesus coming back to life violates everything we know about biology, chemistry, and physics, but he'd simply wave that away with a "Well, he is the son of god." Which is hilarious, really.

Ditto with walking on water, turning water into wine, healing people (pretty amazing before germ theory), predicting various things (like Peter refusing him three times), etc.

[Jesster]

Can you back this theory up with an ounce of historical data that supports it? Please be sure to include the point at which people started to benefit from perpetuating a new, yet false religion. 

This is another example of dopey theories being repeated enough that people begin to believe they have merit--just because--"it must be so because I've seen this argument so used so many times.

Oh, NOW you expect data?   LOL.  

How about, I know everything Kevin said is true via special revelation!  Defeat that!

Exactly. I am the Goddess of creation and I revealed it to LadyForCamus through magic jelly beans. Prove us wrong.

(I also wrote it down for future scholars)

[SteveII]

Why oh why would they die for a lie?  
Stop, I told you I wasn't going to humor this.   If you want me to consider your assertions to be true, make them so.

Aaaand, now we're back to Steve lowering his standards for, and playing the semantics game with words like "evidence", "proof", and "cause and effect" as a means of lubing up his precious NT before shoving it directly into our asses.

If you don't what to hear me mention the NT, then you shouldn't claim there is no evidence for God as a rebuttal to...well...just about anything. In fact there is evidence. The most an atheist can justify saying is that the evidence is not compelling--moving from positively asserting a fact "no evidence" (and not being able to defend it) to the much modest claim of "not compelling". Perhaps I underestimate all of your ability to grasp that distinction.

[Jesster]

Aaaand, now we're back to Steve lowering his standards for, and playing the semantics game with words like "evidence", "proof", and "cause and effect" as a means of lubing up his precious NT before shoving it directly into our asses.

If you don't what to hear me mention the NT, then you shouldn't claim there is no evidence for God as a rebuttal to...well...just about anything. In fact there is evidence. The most an atheist can justify saying is that the evidence is not compelling--moving from positively asserting a fact "no evidence" (and not being able to defend it) to the much modest claim of "not compelling". Perhaps I underestimate all of your ability to grasp that distinction.

And the most a Christian can do is say "but the bible says..."

I say it's toilet paper.

[SteveII]

I mean, I could say that Jesus coming back to life violates everything we know about biology, chemistry, and physics, but he'd simply wave that away with a "Well, he is the son of god."  Which is hilarious, really.

Ditto with walking on water, turning water into wine, healing people (pretty amazing before germ theory), predicting various things (like Peter refusing him three times), etc.

So...you don't think there is evidence for God, miracles would be obvious evidence for God, the NT is not true because it contains miracles. That is a very good example of circular reasoning. Congrats.

[Jesster]

I mean, I could say that Jesus coming back to life violates everything we know about biology, chemistry, and physics, but he'd simply wave that away with a "Well, he is the son of god."  Which is hilarious, really.

Ditto with walking on water, turning water into wine, healing people (pretty amazing before germ theory), predicting various things (like Peter refusing him three times), etc.

So...you don't think there is evidence for God, miracles would be obvious evidence for God, the NT is not true because it contains miracles. That is a very good example of circular reasoning. Congrats.

If you can provide us another more contemporary example of a miracle that can be verified, that would start a good enough evidence trail. I'll wait.

[LadyForCamus]

Aaaand, now we're back to Steve lowering his standards for, and playing the semantics game with words like "evidence", "proof", and "cause and effect" as a means of lubing up his precious NT before shoving it directly into our asses.

If you don't what to hear me mention the NT, then you shouldn't claim there is no evidence for God as a rebuttal to...well...just about anything. In fact there is evidence. The most an atheist can justify saying is that the evidence is not compelling--moving from positively asserting a fact "no evidence" (and not being able to defend it) to the much modest claim of "not compelling". Perhaps I underestimate all of your ability to grasp that distinction.

Oh my god, it never stops.

You: there is evidence for God: the bible

Me: the bible is not evidence. Evidence is demonstrable, repeatable, measurable, and has predictive qualities

You: well, that's SCIENTIFIC evidence. Since God cannot be detected scientifically, you have to accept this "other" kind of non-scientific, special evidence. If you don't accept it, then you are ignoring evidence.

Me: But...one old book and a bunch of testimonials of subjective experience is not good evidence...

You: yes it is. Because...it is. You're ignoring evidence.

*face palm*

[SteveII]

@Jesster - you seem to be posting comments that may be addressed to me. I don't see them. Thought you should know.

[Jesster]

@Jesster - you seem to be posting comments that may be addressed to me. I don't see them. Thought you should know.

You are missing out on some good shit. I thought you should know.


The others can still read my comments. I don't need to convince them of how much of a tool you are though.

[SteveII]

If you don't what to hear me mention the NT, then you shouldn't claim there is no evidence for God as a rebuttal to...well...just about anything. In fact there is evidence. The most an atheist can justify saying is that the evidence is not compelling--moving from positively asserting a fact "no evidence" (and not being able to defend it) to the much modest claim of "not compelling". Perhaps I underestimate all of your ability to grasp that distinction.

Oh my god, it never stops.

You:  there is evidence for God:  the bible

Me:  the bible is not evidence.  Evidence is demonstrable, repeatable, measurable, and has predictive qualities

You:  well, that's SCIENTIFIC evidence.  Since God cannot be detected scientifically, you have to accept this "other" kind of non-scientific, special evidence.  If you don't accept it, then you are ignoring evidence.

Me:  But...one old book and a bunch of testimonials of subjective experience is not good evidence...

You:  yes it is.  Because...it is.  You're ignoring evidence.

*face palm*

Again with the science. You have described scientific evidence and tried to apply it to a field that has nothing to do with science: history and historical documents. What event in history could ever stand up to your criteria of: 'Evidence is demonstrable, repeatable, measurable, and has predictive qualities'? No that is not what evidence is. 

In addition, you said in two different sentences that the 'bible is not evidence' and then 'is not good evidence'. Which is it?

Aren't all experiences subjective? Why would eyewitness accounts not be good evidence in a historical context?